When you're a hammer: MAlign blind spots

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Joat42 wrote:My take on the trilateral design is that the tractors try to pull the ship while the pressors push, and to balance the forces the simplest geometry is trilateral. And as you say, it's probably possible to perhaps have other multilateral designs but there are physics/engineering constraints that preclude them.

How would that work? Remember the ship is accelerating longitudinally. I imagine the tractors not projected perpendicular to the hull, but projected forward, then pulling the ship along.

Like a row boat.

And the more rows and rowers you have, the faster you can accelerate.

Good news or bad news first? Bad...
Bad example: Fastest accelerating and fastest rower was a single dude who hit nearly 20knots ... using a hydrofoil. Nearly 2X faster than the fastest rowboat with however many people you wish to put in it.

Good Now in favor of your analogy... With so many people, your top speed is essentially fixed rather your endurance does increase with a slight increase in top end speed due to wetted hull length speed increasing with hull length due to more people. Drag increases by the square of the velocity placing a hard cap. Still not all that good of an analogy.

The only real reason for more projectors is battle damage. Especially if one has to be "fixed" in space(requires 4 pts) in order to move. Efficiency reasons would use only 4. A warship is not about efficiency but rather reliability, durability, sustainability

PS: Tried thinking of a better analogy, but could not help

May be true for a boat, but David has stated that small spiders (torpedoes) are acceleration limited by the number of projectors they can mount and large spiders (4mt+) are acceleration limited by the grav plates capacity.

So it seems that multiple projectors are needed to produce high acceleration. Not sure it the thrust per projector is very low or the projectors are very sizable.

Given that a spider torpedo seems to be somewhere between 10K to 40K in size it seems that this is too small to mount enough projectors to produce high thrust but can produce thrust comparable to the limit of the MANs grav plates.

You could, in theory, produce a larger drones carrying multiple torpedoes (and/or missile pods) that has much higher thrust that would allow it to produce situations that are pretty negative to the MANs enemies who think they understand the options the LDs have.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Joat42 wrote:My take on the trilateral design is that the tractors try to pull the ship while the pressors push, and to balance the forces the simplest geometry is trilateral. And as you say, it's probably possible to perhaps have other multilateral designs but there are physics/engineering constraints that preclude them.

How would that work? Remember the ship is accelerating longitudinally. I imagine the tractors not projected perpendicular to the hull, but projected forward, then pulling the ship along.

Like a row boat.

And the more rows and rowers you have, the faster you can accelerate.

Well, yes. Lets make a crude picture illustrating the rowers analogy:

Code: Select all

 \\//
<====)
 //\\

<- Direction of movement


The above illustrates that we have 2 tractors pulling and 2 pressors pushing on each side of the ship (the assumption is that is how the drive functions). Now, because hyperspace isn't a plane how do you orient and steer the ship in space? You need a trilateral design for that, or at least a design that allows the tractors/pressors to work together to navigate in 3 dimensions.

It's possible that the tractor/pressors are mounted fore and aft and is projected at the desired direction you want to move, but that doesn't really require a trilateral design.

Joat42 wrote:Well, yes. Lets make a crude picture illustrating the rowers analogy:

Code: Select all

 \\//
<====)
 //\\

<- Direction of movement


The above illustrates that we have 2 tractors pulling and 2 pressors pushing on each side of the ship (the assumption is that is how the drive functions). Now, because hyperspace isn't a plane how do you orient and steer the ship in space? You need a trilateral design for that, or at least a design that allows the tractors/pressors to work together to navigate in 3 dimensions.

That design is exactly what I'm thinking, but as you said, the alpha wall isn't a plane, but a 4D hyperplane, which translates to 3D as being all around in any direction. So the row of "rows" aren't in-line, but mounted 120° apart on a plane. So if you were looking at a spider ship coming straight for you or away from you, you'd see:

Code: Select all

\ /        \ /
 ∆    or    ∇
 |          |


That's not 120° because the slashes aren't precisely diagonal, but you get my point. The ship itself is the triangle in the centre. I don't know which of the two it is, but I think it's the latter: the tractors/pressors are mounted on skegs and the rest of the surface is available for missile tubes and sensors.

You're probably right that they could mount a tractor fore and a pressor aft as well, but I guess they need to keep the stern and after aspects clear so they can mount sensors on it. And particle shield emitters on both ends, unless the spider allows for full deceleration without turnover. And possibly a torpedo/missile door aft, like an SD(P).

ThinksMarkedly wrote:You're probably right that they could mount a tractor fore and a pressor aft as well, but I guess they need to keep the stern and after aspects clear so they can mount sensors on it. And particle shield emitters on both ends, unless the spider allows for full deceleration without turnover. And possibly a torpedo/missile door aft, like an SD(P).

From textev we know that they most likely do a turnover maneuver at high g's since the ship is divided into decks perpendicular to the axis of motion and they have acceleration-couches when the grav-plates couldn't negate the g's (acceleration-couches tend to be oriented to negate g's in one direction only).

Of course, there's a possibility that the couches are mounted on some type of gimbal to facilitate high g's in any direction but the design of the ship belie such an arrangement, especially in light of how grav-plates work.

Relax wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
The reason I even brought impellers on LDs up was the discussion about their being eggshells. I was thinking about the fact that the LD's must rely on active defence (missiles, CMs, ECM, evasive manoeuvres) while using the spider drive is running. So if its stealth is penetrated, such as having been hit and now venting plasma, then incoming missiles can attack from any aspect.

If they do not have sidewalls, then any RD, missile, or LAC's wedge can vaporize the entire ship by just running their wedges through the LD.... They have to have a sidewall of some sort for when they are found.

As for mentality, all comes down to the brass top hats: WHEN or even IF, lower ratings will be allowed to ACT without authorization. True of every military organization for even the best of them. Rigid rigid rigid and usually requires multiple EMBARASSMENTS of epic proportions to get their fingers out of the pie. Maybe they have the Japanese problem from WWII... overly complex instructions from eggs & braid requiring precise maneuvering which almost never works in reality outside of a sneak attack.

All up to RFC to decide how he wants to swing that plot rattler around.

Well, the first time I encountered the idea of a trilateral design I thought it had something to do with the "strength" of the shape. In building things, especially large things, the triangle is the strongest geometrical shape. Marry that notion with three focused bands of gravity and you may get an indestructible ship. Less any "gotchas."

BTW, there really is a "sweet" onion. Vidalia onions are naturally sweet and much less pungent. I tend to eat them raw.

I always championed the thought that the two diametrically opposed factions would hail from this corner - where we have the Detweilers and their delusions of grandeur. And in the other corner, we have the LRPB, the Board of Directors and the RF. All three of which will toss the original founder of the company under the bus. As has frequently been the case for companies for eons.

That is what happens when you lose the controlling share of stock in your own company. And nobody wants to buy stock in your delusions of grandeur.

cthia wrote:Well, the first time I encountered the idea of a trilateral design I thought it had something to do with the "strength" of the shape. In building things, especially large things, the triangle is the strongest geometrical shape. Marry that notion with three focused bands of gravity and you may get an indestructible ship. Less any "gotchas."

Triangles are pretty strong, yes, second only to cylinders. Which is what everyone else's ships are. So if the MAN designers had to compromise from cylinder-shaped, hull strength cannot have been a reason.

It's also not maximising the volume-area ratio. Bulging cylinders are again the best form, if you discard forms that aren't allowed by the needs of the impellers (like spheres).

I always championed the thought that the two diametrically opposed factions would hail from this corner - where we have the Detweilers and their delusions of grandeur. And in the other corner, we have the LRPB, the Board of Directors and the RF. All three of which will toss the original founder of the company under the bus. As has frequently been the case for companies for eons.

That is what happens when you lose the controlling share of stock in your own company. And nobody wants to buy stock in your delusions of grandeur.

Very good point. I can readily see that in the RF leadership, which though indoctrinated, have been embedded in their cultures for centuries.

As for the LRPB, maybe some clarification questions first. We're told that the Albrecht clones were permitted because the endgame was in sight. Who authorised that? Was it the LRPB? I got a feeling that prior to the "sons," there was a strategic planning team that made decisions and controlled the Onion. After all, someone must have conceived and authorised the DuQuesne Plan 150 T-years ago. Albrecht was probably the chair of this team and had the most sway, though. Is this the LRPB?

Or is the LRPB mostly focused on the genetic aspect?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:Well, the first time I encountered the idea of a trilateral design I thought it had something to do with the "strength" of the shape. In building things, especially large things, the triangle is the strongest geometrical shape. Marry that notion with three focused bands of gravity and you may get an indestructible ship. Less any "gotchas."

Triangles are pretty strong, yes, second only to cylinders. Which is what everyone else's ships are. So if the MAN designers had to compromise from cylinder-shaped, hull strength cannot have been a reason.

It's also not maximising the volume-area ratio. Bulging cylinders are again the best form, if you discard forms that aren't allowed by the needs of the impellers (like spheres).

You may be underthinking it. The limitation leading to the necessity of the design may be in the limitation of the "malleability" of the material, gravity. If the bases of the shape are augmented with planes of "unbendable" gravity then it would make the shape indestructible. Any other shape may be impossible to use with their application of gravity. Or, and/or, any other shape may be suboptimal to the planes of forces applied to it.

IOW, the limitation may be in the inability to bend the planes of fortuitous gravity around the more traditional cylinder. As is, the design may be completely encapsulated.

cthia wrote:I always championed the thought that the two diametrically opposed factions would hail from this corner - where we have the Detweilers and their delusions of grandeur. And in the other corner, we have the LRPB, the Board of Directors and the RF. All three of which will toss the original founder of the company under the bus. As has frequently been the case for companies for eons.

That is what happens when you lose the controlling share of stock in your own company. And nobody wants to buy stock in your delusions of grandeur.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Very good point. I can readily see that in the RF leadership, which though indoctrinated, have been embedded in their cultures for centuries.

As for the LRPB, maybe some clarification questions first. We're told that the Albrecht clones were permitted because the endgame was in sight. Who authorised that? Was it the LRPB? I got a feeling that prior to the "sons," there was a strategic planning team that made decisions and controlled the Onion. After all, someone must have conceived and authorised the DuQuesne Plan 150 T-years ago. Albrecht was probably the chair of this team and had the most sway, though. Is this the LRPB?

Or is the LRPB mostly focused on the genetic aspect?

By its very name and nature, it is inferred that it is the LRPB that made the decision to allow the clones. I would assume that long range planning has to have free rein. However, I admit that the hierarchy between the LRPB and the BoD is unclear. But the point is moot, as it is clear that they both outrank the Detweilers. One by design, one by necessity. Supremely interesting.

At any rate, if it is built on the traditional business model, one wouldn't think a BoD would allow clones. Clones, which may automatically inherit stock, thus some controlling interest. A BoD would want less mouths to feed financially and politically.

Again, supremely interesting.

Another blind spot.

The MAlign may have been so in love with their ability to fit long term infiltration families into the power structures of the RF that they may have greatly overestimated how much control that would give them of those systems when they step out from behind the curtain.

Lets assume each deep agent is fully indoctrinated with the goals of the MAlign and fully accepting of the measures the MAlign has taken so far to achieve them. (Though the later seems by no means guaranteed).
Even so if those planets' general population, or maybe even a consolidation of opposition parties, is sufficient abhorred by the eventual revelations of what the MAlign has done that could rip some RF planets into rebellion when the Detwillers reached the point in their plan of stepping out of the shadows and publicly taking the head of the MAlign + RF.

cthia wrote:You may be underthinking it. The limitation leading to the necessity of the design may be in the limitation of the "malleability" of the material, gravity. If the bases of the shape are augmented with planes of "unbendable" gravity then it would make the shape indestructible. Any other shape may be impossible to use with their application of gravity. Or, and/or, any other shape may be suboptimal to the planes of forces applied to it.

IOW, the limitation may be in the inability to bend the planes of fortuitous gravity around the more traditional cylinder. As is, the design may be completely encapsulated.

We're in agreement, just expressing things differently. The shape is not because of the material, it's something intrinsic to the spider drive's working.

I can't follow it to the conclusion that it's indestructible. Even if you could show compelling textev that it has to be, they won't be. RFC will introduce something that makes them vulnerable to something else. So that point is moot.

cthia wrote:By its very name and nature, it is inferred that it is the LRPB that made the decision to allow the clones. I would assume that long range planning has to have free rein. However, I admit that the hierarchy between the LRPB and the BoD is unclear. But the point is moot, as it is clear that they both outrank the Detweilers. One by design, one by necessity. Supremely interesting.

At any rate, if it is built on the traditional business model, one wouldn't think a BoD would allow clones. Clones, which may automatically inherit stock, thus some controlling interest. A BoD would want less mouths to feed financially and politically.

Actually, no, it's not clear that they outrank the Detweilers. In my view, the Detweilers are the foremost members of both structures, even assuming they are separate entities. Yes, I find it unlikely that a pre-clones board would vote to create 6 clones of Albrecht who would later supplant them. Knowing their nature and their strategic thinking (q.v. influence on the Mandarins), they aren't likely to vote themselves out of office.

And yet, aside from The Shadow of Saganami itself, every single time we've been privy to long-term, strategic decisions being made in the MAlign, it's been the Detweilers, with one exception (Francesca Simões). Even in SI1, Albrecht was present, but that was a setting that did not correspond to the Inner Onion, as Anisimovna wasn't yet a part of that. I think it's also the only time we've seen the Board setting.

So, the only explanation I can come to is that the board voted to have the clones because Albrecht told them so. They didn't have an option.